Rome III criteria
REVIEWS
Rome III: New Standard for Functional Gastrointestinal
Disorders
Douglas A Drossman1, Dan L Dumitrascu2
1) Douglas A Drossman, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, UNC Center for Functional GI and Motility
Disorders, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 2) Dan L Dumitrascu, 3rd Medical Department., University of Medicine and Pharmacy,
Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Abstract
The publication in the April, 2006 issue of
Gastroenterology of Rome III has made available to the
scientific world an enhanced and updated version of the
Rome criteria and related information on the functional GI
disorders. It is expected that the criteria will be adopted and
used by physicians, pharmaceuticals and regulatory
agencies worldwide, just as the previous Rome II became
the standard for clinical practice and research. In this issue
of J Gastrointestin Liver Dis, these Guidelines, the Rome III,
are presented. Also included are some of the differences
between Rome II and Rome III criteria as well as the rationale
for publishing this new version.
Key words
Functional gastrointestinal disorders - Rome III
Introduction
Functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID) represent
a common and important class of disorders within
gastroenterology. The large number of patients suffering
from the FGIDs, as well as the high frequency of functional
GI symptoms in general within the population, the health
care burden produced by the use of medical services and
medications for these conditions, and its eventual outcome
in terms of work absenteeism are well known (1-4).
Quite possibly, increased awareness of the FGIDs may
have resulted from the activity of the Rome working group,
later called the Rome Foundation. This group introduced a
standard for the classification and diagnosis of the FGID,
the Rome criteria. A series of documents in the early 1990s
published in Gastroenterology International was eventually
J Gastrointestin Liver Dis
September 2006 Vol.15 No.3, 237-241
Address for correspondence: Douglas A Drossman
Division of Gastroenterol.Hepatol.
UNC Center for Functional GI
and Motility Disorders
Chapel Hill, NC, USA
compiled into a book that was published in 1994 (5). The
criteria were then updated as Rome II in 2000 (6) and
published in abbreviated form as a supplement of Gut, 1999.
The need for a new version of Rome criteria
In recent years the interest in the FGIDs by gastro-
enterologists, internists, psychologists and family
physicians as well as attention by the general has grown
considerably. This could be attributed to increased attention
to these disorders by the media, pharmaceutical companies,
academic and interest organizations like the International
Foundation for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders and
the Functional Brain Gut Research Group of the American
Gastroenterological Association. But what has led to the
development of another set of criteria: Rome III has several
explanations.
The availability of new data from scientific
progress
The number of studies and publications on the FGID
increased along with the progress of newer investigative
methods. In Fig 1 is presented the dynamics of the
publications on irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), a major
FGID, indexed on Medline. These studies served to
legitimize these conditions in a positive way, not just by
exclusion of other disorders. The assessment of motility
has improved (7-9). The wider use of the barostat, as the
main technique for assessing visceral hypersensitivity has
provided evidence for the role of visceral sensitivity in
understanding these conditions (10). Finally, another novel
area of development has been the progress in brain imaging:
positron emission tomography (PET), and functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). These modalities offer
a window into the central modulation of GI function and its
linkages to emotional and cognitive areas (11). Thus the
nature of FGID as disorders of brain-gut interactions is now
238
eminently amenable to scientific study. The psychological
instruments permitting the categorization and quantification
of emotions, stress, and cognitions have also been better
standardized (12), and these measures help us determine
the role of psychosocial factors on symptom generation
and health outcomes. Finally, the molecular investigation of
brain and gut peptides, mucosal immunology, inflammation,
and alterations in the bacterial flora of the gut provide the
translational basis for GI symptom generation.
The advent of new drugs and the necessity
to develop new therapies
There is a growing competition in the marketplace to
synthesize and produce new medications to meet the
demands of patients now identified with FGIDs. In recent
years we have witnessed the development and release of
new pharmacological agents to treat altered motility, visceral
hypersensitivity, and stress-mediated effects in patients with
FGID. The newer agents include the 5-HT agonists and
antagonists and several other gut receptor active agents
for constipation and diarrhea, centrally acting agents
including antidepressants to treat stress-mediated effects
of CNS modulation of the gut (13-15). In addition, different
forms of psychotherapy have shown their benefit in treating
the FGID (16-17).
The shift of paradigm in medical
conceptualization
The basic paradigm of the modern medicine has
traditionally relied on the concepts promoted by Descartes
of biological reductionism and dualism, which in medicine,
seeks to find a single biological etiology for every clinical
condition (18). In the last decades we have moved away
Fig.1 Number of Medline indexed journal papers on IBS.
Drossman and Dumitrascu
from this reductionistic model of disease to a more holistic
paradigm of the biopsychosocial model of disease. Here,
illness (the persons experience of ill health), and disease
(objective histopathological findings) are viewed as equally
important in understanding the clinical expression of a
medical condition, and this refuted the traditional
reductionistic model of disease. The reductionistic disease-
based biomedical model harmonized with Descartes
separation of mind and body at the time when society was
accepting the concept of separation of church and state
(19). What resulted was permission to dissect the human
body (which was previously forbidden), so disease was
defined by what was seen (i.e., pathology based on abnormal
morphology). This approach led to centuries of valuable
research producing appropriated treatments for many
diseases. However, the concept of the mind (i.e., the central
nervous system, CNS) as being amenable to scientific study
or as playing a role in illness and disease was marginalized:
the mind was considered the seat of the soul, and was not
to be tampered with. More recent scientific studies link the
mind and body as part of a system where their dysregulation
can produce illness and disease. By embracing this
integrated understanding, the biopsychosocial model allows
for symptoms to be both physiologically multidetermined
and modifiable by socio-cultural and psychosocial
influences (20, 21).
The application of this model of Engel to the FGIDs helps
to explain how changes in early life, genetic factors and
environmental factors, may affect the psychosocial
development (susceptibility to life stress, psychological
state, coping skills, social support) and/or the development
of gut dysfunction (i.e., abnormal motility, visceral
hypersensitivity, inflammation, or altered bacterial flora), all
of which lead to the clinical expression of the disorder.
Furthermore, these brain-gut variables mutually interact to
influence their expression. Therefore the FGID are the clinical
product of the interaction of psychosocial factors and altered
Rome III criteria
gut physiology via the brain-gut axis (22). For example, an
individual with a bacterial gastroenteritis or other bowel
disorder who has no concurrent psychosocial difficulties
and good coping skills may not develop the clinical
syndrome (or be aware of it) or, if it does develop, may not
perceive the need to seek medical care. Another individual
with coexistent psychosocial comorbidities, high life stress,
abuse history, or maladaptive coping, may develop a FGID
and visit more frequently the physician and have a worse
clinical outcome.
From Rome II to Rome III
A great deal of progress in the field has evolved from
the beginning of the Rome process in 1989 (23). The
publications of the Rome criteria in journals and books are
presented in chronological order in Fig.2. All physicians
now recognize the FGIDs as true clinical entities. Researchers
and clinicians worldwide are more involved with these
disorders, and the Rome process has played an important
role in categorizing and disseminating the new and evolving
knowledge. These disorders are now a prominent part of
undergraduate and postgraduate medical curricula, clinical
training programs, and international symposia. The number
of papers in the FGIDs in peer-reviewed journals has
increased dramatically. In a parallel fashion these disorders
are commonly reported in newspapers, television and even
cinema. But now there are future challenges to be faced: a
need for an improved understanding of the relationships
between mind and gut, and the translation of basic
neurotransmitter function into clinical symptoms and their
impact on the patients health status and quality of life.
There is also a need to educate clinicians and the general
public on this rapidly growing knowledge and, in the
process, continue to legitimize these disorders to society
(12).
Fig.2 Chronology of the Rome criteria publications.
239
The Rome process for developing these criteria is a
rigorous one. The consensus process was initiated by
Professor Aldo Torsoli at the International Congress of
Gastroenterology in Rome (Roma 1989). He charged working
team committees to use a Delphi method of decision-
making, which fosters a team to produce consistency in
opinion, or consensus (although not necessarily total
agreement) for difficult questions not easily addressed. The
Roma 88 meeting led to the first presentation of criteria for
IBS, which later evolved into a classification system for all
the functional GI disorders (1) eventually evolving into the
Rome criteria (Rome I) [reference Rome I book). Later, the
Rome II committees and more recently the Rome III board
took on the responsibility to enhance these activities using
a rigorous 4-year, multiple step process.
What is preserved in Rome III?
The Rome III classification has been printed in this issue
of J Gastrointestin Liver Dis in the section Guidelines.
It maintains the principle of symptom-based diagnostic
criteria like the DSM classification for mental disorders. The
classification relies on the organs where the symptoms
presumably are produced. They are in order from esophagus
to anus. This classification is maintained in the pediatric
child/adolescent classification system, though is based
more on developmental stages for the pediatric neonate/
toddler system.
The FGIDs include 6 major domains for adults: eso-
phageal (category A), gastroduodenal (category B), bowel
(category C), functional abdominal pain syndrome (category
D), biliary (category E), and anorectal (category F).
Each category site contains several disorders, each
having relatively specific clinical features. So, the functional
bowel disorders (category C) include IBS (C1), functional
bloating (C2), functional constipation (C3) and functional
240
diarrhea (C4), which anatomically are attributed to the small
bowel, colon, and rectum. Thus, while symptoms (e.g.,
diarrhea, constipation, bloating, pain) may overlap across
these disorders, IBS (C1) is more specifically defined as
pain associated with change in bowel habit, and this is
distinct from functional diarrhea (C4), characterized by loose
stools and no pain, or functional bloating (C2), where there
is no change in bowel habit. Each condition also has different
diagnostic and treatment approaches.
The symptoms of the FGIDs are derived from
combinations of their physiological determinants: increased
motor reactivity, enhanced visceral hypersensitivity, altered
mucosal immune and inflammatory function (which includes
changes in bacterial flora), and altered CNS-enteric nervous
system (ENS) regulation (as influenced by psychosocial and
sociocultural factors and exposures). For example, fecal
incontinence (category F1) may primarily be a disorder of
motor function, while functional abdominal pain syndrome
(category D) is primarily understood as amplified central
perception of normal visceral input. IBS (category C1) is
more complex, and results from a combination of dysmotility,
visceral hypersensitivity, mucosal immune dysregulation,
alterations of bacterial flora, and CNS-ENS dysregulation.
The contribution of these factors may vary across different
individuals or within the same individual over time. Thus,
the clinical value of separating the functional GI symptoms
into discrete conditions is that they can be reliably diagnosed
and better treated (12). The Rome III classification system is
based on the premise that for each disorder there are
symptom clusters that breed true across clinical and
population groups. This presumption provides a framework
for identification of patients for research that is modified as
new scientific data emerges.
The rationale for classifying the functional GI disorders
into symptom-based subgroups are based on the site-
specific differences between symptoms, i.e., the fact that
symptoms result from multiple influences, from epidemio-
logic data showing similar frequencies of these disorders
across cultures, and finally, out of the need for diagnostic
standards in order to conduct clinical care and research.
There are several limitations and qualifications to the
use of symptom-based criteria:
- Other diseases may coexist and have to be excluded,
and symptoms may overlap with other FGID. It is common
for functional GI disorders to coexist, and the criteria permit
the coexistence of more than one FGID. Examples would be
esophageal chest pain (A2) or globus (A4), with IBS (C1) or
fecal incontinence (F1). However, there are situations where
a hierarchical classification of the FGIDs is required. For
example, when criteria for both IBS (C1) and epigastric pain
syndrome (B1b) are fulfilled, the diagnosis of IBS only is
made when the epigastric pain is relieved by defecation.
Similarly functional bloating (C2) exists only when IBS and
the dyspeptic conditions are excluded, since bloating is
common to both these other conditions, and a diagnosis of
functional constipation (C3) is made only if IBS criteria are
not met.
Drossman and Dumitrascu
- Diagnostic categories do not include psychosocial
criteria.
- The proposed diagnostic criteria were originated by
the consensus of experts in the field and have since been
modified only if there is compelling evidence to do so.
- All changes in criteria relate to a rationale that is
provided in corresponding chapter of the Rome III book
chapter. In some cases, recommendations for changes (e.g.,
dyspeptic criteria, subtypes of IBS) are not yet proven but
are supported by compelling evidence.
- New criteria will be tested in future studies now
underway, and this will form the basis for future
modifications of the criteria.
What has changed in Rome III?
The changes from Rome II to Rome III reflect mainly
updates in the literature and committee recommendations
derived from these new data. In addition, a few modifications
in the categories and criteria were made. These are:
1. Change of chronological criteria. Symptoms are now
recommended to originate 6 months prior to diagnosis and
be currently active (i.e., meet criteria) for 3 months. This
time frame is less restrictive when compared to Rome II (12
weeks of symptoms over 12 months) and is easier to
understand and apply in research and clinical practice.
2. Changes in classification categories:
a. Rumination syndrome moved from functional
esophageal (Category A) to functional gastroduodenal
disorders (Category B). This reflects the evidence that this
disorder originates from disturbances in the stomach and
abdomen.
b. Removal of functional abdominal pain syndrome
(FAPS) from functional bowel disorders (Category C) into
its own category (Category D). This is based on growing
evidence that FAPS relates more to CNS amplification of
normal regulatory visceral signals rather than functional
abnormalities within the GI tract.
3. Creation of two pediatric categories. The Rome II
category of Childhood Functional GI Disorders (called
Category G) has been split into two categories. The pediatric
FGID are now classified as Childhood Functional GI
Disorders: Neonate/Toddler (Category G) and Childhood
Functional GI Disorders: Child/Adolescent (Category H).
This is due to the different clinical conditions that arise
between these two categories relating to growth and
development of the child.
4. Criteria changes:
a. Functional Dyspepsia. For Rome III, functional
dyspepsia is de-emphasized as an entity for research due to
the heterogeneity of this symptom complex as defined.
Instead, the committees recommend two conditions that are
subsumed under the functional dyspepsia umbrella: (a)
Postprandial distress syndrome, and (b) Epigastric pain
Rome III criteria
syndrome. These are similar to dysmotility-like and ulcer-
like dyspepsia of Rome II. However, they are now defined
by a complex of symptom features with physiological support
rather than being based on the predominant symptom of
epigastric discomfort or pain respectively.
b. More restrictive criteria for functional disorders of
the gallbladder and sphincter of Oddi. There are more
defining features and exclusions required for symptom-based
diagnosis of these conditions. In doing so, we have reduced
the patient population who would then receive invasive
studies like endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreato-
graphy (ERCP) and manometry to confirm the diagnosis and
be treated.
c. Revision of IBS subtypes criteria. The committees are
recommending that diarrhea, constipation and mixed
subtypes be based on a simple classification related to stool
consistency. However, the bowel sub-typing used in Rome
II for diarrhea-predominant IBS (IBS-D) and constipation-
predominant IBS (IBS-C) is still acceptable.
Conclusion
It is expected that the new Rome III criteria will rapidly
gain acceptance and use as occurred with Rome II, and
become the new standard for diagnosis and care of the
FGIDs. Of course, papers and studies with Rome II criteria
will continue to be issued. There is a need to validate the
new terms in non-Anglo-Saxon languages like the Latin
languages, especially the postprandial distress syndrome.
The members of the Rome Foundation hope that the
Rome criteria will enhance the development of our knowledge
on the FGID.
References
1. Drossman DA, Thompson WG, Talley NJ, Funch-Jensen P,
Janssens J, WhiteheadWE. Identification of subgroups of
functional bowel disorders. Gastroenterology International
1990;3:159-172
2. Koloski NA, Talley NJ, Boyce PM. Predictors of health care
seeking for irritable bowel syndrome and nonulcer dyspepsia: a
critical review of the literature on symptom and psychosocial
factors. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:1340-1349
3. Saito YA, Schoenfeld P. Locke GRI. The epidemiology of
irritable bowel syndrome in North America: a systematic review.
Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:1910-1915
4. Longstreth GF, Wilson A, Knight K, et al. Irritable bowel
syndrome, health care use and costs: a US managed care
perspective. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:600-607
241
5. Drossman DA, Richter JE, Talley NJ, Corazziari E, Thompson
WG, Whitehead WE. Functional gastrointestinal disorders.
Boston, Little Brown 1994
6. Drossman DA, Corazziari E, Talley NJ, Thompson WG,
Whitehead WE. Rome II: The functional gastrointestinal
disorders. Degnon Assoc McLean Virginia, 2000
7. Azpiroz F, Eck P, Whitehead WE Anorectal functional testig:
review of collective eperience. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:
232-240
8. Parkman HP, Hasler WL, Fisher RS. AGA technical review on
the diagnosis and treatment of gastroparesis. Gastroenterology
2004;128:209-224
9. Pandolfino JE, Kahrilas PJ. AGA technical review of the clinical
use of esophageal manometry. Gastroenterology 2004;128:209-
224
10. Whitehead WE, Delvaux M. Standardization procedures for
testing smooth muscle tone and sensory thresholds in the
gastrointestinal tract. Dig Dis Sci 1994;42:223-241
11. Drossman DA. Brain imaging and its implications for studying
centrally targeted treatments in IBS: a primer for
gastroenterologists. Gut 2005;54:569-573
12. Drossman DA. The functional gastrointestinal disorders and
the Rome III process. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1377-1390
13. Lembo A, Weber HC, Farraye FA. Alosetron in irritable bowel
syndrome: strategies for the use in a common gastrointestinal
disorder. Drugs 2003;63:1895-1905
14. Galligan JJ, Vanner S. Basic and clinical pharmacology of new
motility promoting agents. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2005;17:
643-653
15. Sagami Y, Shimada Y, Tayama J, et al. Effect of corticotrophin-
releasing hormone receptor antagonist on colonic sensory and
motor function in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Gut
2004;53: 958-964
16. Creed F, Fernandes L, Guthrie E, et al. The cost-effectiveness
of psychotherapy and paroxetine for severe irritable bowel
syndrome. Gastroenterology 2003;124: 303-317
17. Drossman DA, Toner BB, Whitehead WE, et al. Cognitive-
behavioral therapy vs. education and desipramine vs. placebo
for moderate to severe functional bowel disorders.
Gastroenterology 2003;125:19-31
18. Drossman DA. Presidential address: gastrointestinal illness and
the biopsychosocial model. Psychosom Med 1998;60:258-267
19. Descartes R. Discours de la methode. Vrin, Paris, 1992
20. Engel GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for
biomedicine. Science 1977;196:129-136
21. Engel GL. The clinical application of the biopsychosocial model.
Am J Psychiatry 1980;147:535-544
22. Jones MP, Dilley JB, Drossman DA, Crowel MD. Brain-gut
connections in functional GI disorders: anatomic and
physiologic relationships. Neurogastroent Motil 2006;18:91-
103
23. Thompson WG. The road to Rome. Gastroenterology
2006;130:1552-1556